DLD-168 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-4745
___________
RICHARD L. BLANCHARD,
Appellant
v.
REIGLE; R. WOLEVER; FREAS; M. CASSELL; STEVE JABLONSKI;
R. MARTINEZ; SCOTT DODRILL; HARRELL WATTS
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 1-09-cv-01232)
District Judge: Honorable William W. Caldwell
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 21, 2011
Before: BARRY, FISHER and ROTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: June 9, 2011)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Richard Blanchard, proceeding pro se, appeals from the District Court’s entry of
judgment against him. For the reasons that follow, we will dismiss the appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The instant action originated when Blanchard slipped and fell on the ice while
incarcerated at USP-Allenwood, White Deer, Pennsylvania, on February 4, 2008. He
claims that he informed Officer Reigle that he injured his knee in the fall, and was told to
report to medical the following day instead of the same day. He further alleges that he
told Unit Manager Wolever that he had fallen and Wolever told Blanchard he would
inform the Assistant Health Services Administrator, but failed to do so, and that both
Security Guard Freas and Security Guard Cassell prevented him from attending his
medical appointment on February 5, 2008. Blanchard was seen by Physician Assistant
Jablonski in Health Services on February 6, 2008. Blanchard asserts that Jablonski
refused to issue him any pain pills, treatments, or aids, and that, as of the date the
complaint was filed, he still had not received an MRI. Finally, Blanchard complains that
the remaining defendants, Warden Martinez, Regional Director Dodrill, and Headquarters
Director Watts denied him relief during the administrative remedy process. In June 2009,
Blanchard initiated the underlying action in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971), claiming that each of these defendants
denied him his Eighth Amendment right to medical care.
Appellees moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. They argued that all of
the non-medical defendants should be dismissed due to Blanchard’s failure to allege that
any of them had knowledge of a substantial risk to Blanchard’s health or safety. They
further argued that summary judgment should be entered in favor of PA Jablonski, as the
2
record reflected that he provided Blanchard with extensive medical care, both for his
knee and a variety of other ailments. Specifically, Blanchard’s medical records reflect
that Jablonski examined Blanchard’s knee on February 6, 2008, requested an MRI and an
orthopedic consult, advised Blanchard to use warm compresses in the meantime, and to
return to sick call if necessary. According to his medical records, on March 4, 2008,
Blanchard refused to discuss the lab results from February 6, 2008 with PA Jablonski.
On May 15, 2008, Blanchard was examined by an orthopedic surgeon, who diagnosed
Blanchard with degenerative joint disease with internal derangement. The surgeon gave
Blanchard an injection for his knee, ordered an MRI, and recommended that Blanchard
ice his knee in the interim. On September 11, 2008, Blanchard was scheduled to see Dr.
Brady in order to determine whether he needed an MRI. However, Blanchard refused to
attend the appointment, indicating that he was afraid of the officers who came to escort
him to the appointment. The records further reflect that Blanchard was regularly seen by
the medical staff for a variety of ailments, and did not indicate that he was suffering from
ongoing knee pain.
Blanchard filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, maintaining that he was
denied prompt medical care by Appellees Reigle, Wolever, Freas, and Cassell, that
Jablonski failed to provide him with any medical care whatsoever, that he was told to
purchase pain medication from the commissary, and that he was denied a walking aid.
Blanchard argued that in submitting records reflecting the overall level of medical care he
received, Appellees disguised the lack of medical care he received relating to his knee
3
injury. He also requested discovery regarding the treatment provided specifically for his
right knee.
On October 22, 2010, the District Court granted Appellees’ motion to dismiss as
to Appellees Martinez, Dodrill and Watts, as Blanchard failed to allege any personal
involvement on their parts in the provision of his medical care. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, __
U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (explaining that “each government official, his or
her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct”); Rode v.
Dellarciprete, 845 F.2d 1195, 1207 (3d Cir. 1988) (same). With respect to the allegations
that Appellees Riegle, Wolever, Freas and Cassell violated his Eighth Amendment rights
by delaying his access to medical care, the Court held that Blanchard failed to
demonstrate that these Appellees acted with deliberate indifference to a serious risk to his
health. See Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 197 (3d Cir. 1999) (holding that, to state a
claim for an Eighth Amendment denial of medical care, a plaintiff must show “(1) that
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs and (2) that those
needs were serious”). As the District Court explained, Blanchard was able to ambulate
on the day of the accident and did not have any obvious or visible injuries. Additionally,
there was no evidence to suggest that Blanchard was prevented from leaving the unit
during open move periods or meals. Thus, there was no basis on which to infer that any
of these Appellees consciously disregarded a serious risk to his health or prevented him
from receiving necessary medical treatment. See id.
4
Finally, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of PA Jablonski, as it was
undisputed that Jablonski provided Blanchard with extensive medical care for a variety of
ailments, including his knee. Additionally, the Court found that there was no evidence
that Jablonski played any role in denying or cancelling Blanchard’s MRI. As the Court
noted, Blanchard’s allegations at most amount to a disagreement as to whether he
received the proper medical treatment and, as such, were insufficient to support an Eighth
Amendment claim for the denial of medical care. See Monmouth Cnty. Corr.
Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987). In light of its ruling,
the Court denied Blanchard’s motion for discovery, noting in addition that Blanchard had
not indicated that he had sent Appellees any discovery requests to which they failed to
respond. Blanchard appealed and requests the appointment of counsel on appeal.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because
Appellant has been granted in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, we
review this appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An
appeal must be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B) if it has no arguable basis in fact or law.
See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). We review the District Court’s
decision to grant a motion to dismiss de novo. See Dique v. N.J. State Police, 603 F.3d
181, 188 (3d Cir. 2010). We also exercise plenary review over the District Court’s entry
of summary judgment, viewing the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences
therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See Ray v. Twp. of
Warren, 626 F.3d 170, 173 (3d Cir. 2010).
5
For all of the reasons given by the District Court, we agree with its resolution of
Blanchard’s claims. Viewing all facts and inferences in Blanchard’s favor, we agree that
Blanchard failed to demonstrate that any of the Appellees deprived him of his Eighth
Amendment right to medical care. Additionally, there is no indication that any further
discovery would affect the outcome of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Because the
District Court properly resolved all of Appellant’s claims, we conclude that this appeal
must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Blanchard’s motion for the
appointment of counsel is denied.
6